Reported / Citable
Background
Christopher Kent Grayer sought Supplemental Security Income, but an administrative law judge denied his application. Grayer challenged the denial, principally arguing that the ALJ wrongly found his alleged neuropathy was not a medically determinable impairment because objective evidence did not support it.
Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn recommended affirmance. Grayer objected, citing treatment records that mentioned neuropathy and lower-extremity burning and pain. He argued that a more restrictive residual functional capacity was conceivable and sought remand for a consultative examination with electromyography testing.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Marcia A. Crone overruled Grayer’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. The court did not decide whether the ALJ was correct to treat neuropathy as not medically determinable; instead, it concluded that any error was harmless.
The ALJ found other severe impairments, completed the sequential evaluation, considered Grayer’s neuropathy-related allegations and treatment records, and imposed significant standing-and-walking restrictions in the RFC. Grayer did not identify record-supported functional limitations attributable to neuropathy that the RFC omitted. He also failed to show an evidentiary gap requiring a consultative examination or EMG.
Key Takeaways
- An alleged error in characterizing an impairment may be harmless when the ALJ considers the related symptoms and proceeds through the disability analysis.
- A diagnosis or evidence supporting a diagnosis does not itself establish additional work-related limitations absent supporting evidence.
- A claimant seeking a consultative examination must show that it was necessary for an informed disability determination, not merely potentially helpful.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the Fifth Circuit’s prejudice requirement in Social Security appeals. Claimants challenging an RFC must identify specific, supported limitations that the ALJ omitted and show that the asserted error affected substantial rights.